Marriage – it’s Already Equal Already!

We came across this post on Facebook and thought that it deserved MUCH wider attention. It was written about a year ago on the subject of same-sex marriage and it’s author, a man named Kelly Fountain,  hit the nail on the head with his short essay. Please read and share this – the message needs to get out there.

Traditional Male/Female Marriage has always been understood to be an institution designed to promote the most common basic unit of social structure in any civilization throughout history to this day: the natural human family – a man, a woman, and their naturally-conceived biological child. This community/state recognition and promotion of legal “marriage” between a man and a woman was designed to foster and value that very special unique natural relationship in our society: the family unit. We can all immediately agree that civil marriage does not REQUIRE couples to have biological children together. No. However, what marriage does for society is to ACCOMMODATE that natural law – a statement of fact – that males and females do indeed have biological children together – and this is the intellectual difference.

Marriage has proven to be the best tool that any society has to promote the need for social order and stable family structure. Common sense would dictate that marriage is an effective legal institution which most positively helps, encourages and promotes biological fathers to remain with, and to help raise, their own biological children with the biological mother. Under the law, “marriage” is a civil legal institution, designed to provide social structure and stability for the family unit and the society as a whole. Male/female “marriage” is a good thing for any society to promote, as this unique institution is our society’s best alternative to single motherhood.

“All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive. Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other.” -Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Trending: Thomas Jefferson & the Mussulmen (Muslim)

defending marriageIn addition, civil marriage law can not and does not legislate nor provide for “love” of the spouse; for love itself is impossible to legally define. Legally speaking, civil social marriage laws have more to do with property rights and taxes, family laws, privileges, and legal interactions – less to do with “love” per se’. No one denies that gay people can and do love one another. But any attempt to bring “love” into the argument as a legal basis for “gay marriage” actually cheapens the value of words and legal definitions within the law. Love is not up for regulation by any human laws – nor can it ever be, given that true “love” can not be required, denied, regulated, overseen, nor even identified by law as a matter of defining “Marriage”, family, child care, or any other institution. It is a disingenuous fallacy to say that legal “marriage” should be based upon “love” for another (same-sex) person. In addition, there are many legally married 1M/1F couples who don’t love one another, yet their marriages remain legally valid. Rightfully so.

That being said, if a couple should happen to “love” one another in their Marriage relationship – and most do – then that love is a natural emotion, unregulated by human law. That love is a completely natural, complementary by-product of the special commitment and the task-at-hand: conceiving and raising a family unit, and taking care of one-another, forever. Marriage is indeed an institution based upon the common natural practice and the need to conceive and raise children in an orderly, stable, productive manner. The fact that that men and women are naturally able to conceive a child, and that they have the natural ability to love the other specifically as opposite-gender couples do, is something of a natural advantage for good social structure within a family; that is to say, naturally, life-long love is the best motivator for successful Marriage, child-bearing, and child-raising, and family structure.

Intellectually speaking, this must be noted and addressed: By definition, our individual liberties and freedoms apply – rightfully so – to the individual; for it is the individual whom the Constitutional Bill of Rights was designed to set out and protect from the group and from the community as a whole. It is the individual (and not the couple, not the corporation, not the institution, not the union, not the church, not the family, but yes, the individual) who enjoys certain rights, privileges and due process. As the individuals that We The People are, our marriage laws – and every other law – should be blind and equal with regard to the application.

marriageAnd here, this will likely be the most controversial and provocative point that I will make in this writing. The law indeed is already equal in this sense: every individual person – regardless of their preferences, or other qualities – has the equal opportunity to individually participate in traditional marriage, as it has always been known and traditionally classified and defined under the law. Yes, it’s equal. Traditional male/female marriage laws already apply equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals in that the law is already rightfully equally blind and without bias regarding sexual preferences. Everyone – regardless of their sexual preference, race, religion – already enjoys an equal opportunity to “marry” anyone else of opposite gender – equally – and to naturally conceive and raise children with that person – just as Marriage laws were originally intended to recognize and promote – equally so – with or without “love”.

It is an undeniable fact that many homosexuals have already chosen to participate in traditional lawful male/female legal marriages, and they have indeed many times naturally conceived children – the very subjects that civil marriage laws are designed to recognize and value. Those marriages are every bit as legally valid and applicable under the law which already applies equally, without discrimination and without regard to race, religion, gender, and regardless even of sexual preference. This means that every one equally has an equal opportunity to marry anyone else of opposite gender (because that’s how children are produced and families are raised), equally.

Yes, I make the point here and now that homosexual people should indeed have equal Individual Civil Rights, but it should be recognized that biologically conceiving children is not a natural or civil right that homosexual couples can possibly naturally exercise, unless they exercise such natural and legal right with another individual of opposite gender. This is common sense and it is a truth of Natural Law that must be considered. Because of this, the homosexual civil union should be classified as something different – even if entirely equal in every other way: with benefits and rights – including things such as property rights, taxes – all of which should also apply equally, without regard to race, sexual preferences, or religion.

Quite simply speaking, marriage equality is this: 1 from the boys’ side, 1 from the girls’ – gay or straight, religious or not, black or green, disabled or not. There is no discrimination. Everyone is allowed to participate. Marriage – It’s Already Equal.

And, if it’s not a Male/Female relationship, then it needs another legal term that everyone can agree upon…but not “Marriage”. It is not “Marriage”. Gay civil unions are something different than marriage. Our civil union laws should assign and define a different but equal legal word than “Marriage”, which as noted, is indeed a union of man and woman. Other civil unions should rightfully be classified as something distinctly different, although legally equal regarding civil rights (other than the natural right to conceive and raise a natural biological child).

This is not hate nor is it discriminatory, as these principles apply to all individuals equally. It is simply an honest recognition for the social, civil and moral value of “Marriage”, while also recognizing the equal civil liberties of all members of society. Everyone, including homosexuals, deserve equal civil human rights. But legal words should have solid, unchanging meaning to the individual person and our society at large. Once we start drastically changing the legal root definitions of well-known words in the law, we will soon thereafter develop chaos. This is undeniable.

Solution: We The People should work together to find another legal “word”, define it equally (like males are different than females although under the law they are “equal”… like public Men’s restrooms are different than public Women’s restrooms…I’m suggesting the same thing…) – I would suggest We define the LGBT relationship as something different but equal to “Marriage” (and please notice I did not say “separate but equal”), establish legally defined equal due process for all parties involved, and then be done with it. Anything else will be a long hard divisive battle that undermines the law and further creates hate.

I just established a reasonable way to legislate equality under the law for LGBT civil unions. This is a simple and reasonable solution that recognizes equal due process for all, while respecting the private individual religious beliefs of everyone who has them regarding this issue. I myself would indeed vote for this kind of equality, as would millions of like-minded thinkers on my side of this issue, sadly political and divisive as it has become. I would promote elected officials who would advance such equality under the law. I say this as the most conservative Christian man that I know.



This is why marriage matters: Marriage encapsulates a set of norms and expectations which civilize men, protect women, and serve the needs of children. Abandon these norms, and “parenting” becomes a soap-opera story about adults’ goals and achievements, where children are merely part of the supporting cast.


See more at:


By Kelly Fountain 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend